Article

Breast Implant Infections: Is Cefazolin Enough?

Division of Plastic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.33). 09/2010; 126(3):779-85. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181e5f7ff
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Bacterial infection is a well-known risk of breast implant surgery, occurring in 2.0 to 2.5 percent of cosmetic cases and up to 20 percent of reconstructive cases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a first-generation cephalosporin for perioperative prophylaxis; however, no guidelines exist for the empiric treatment of established breast implant infections. A recent increase in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections has prompted interest in using alternative antibiotics with anti-methicillin-resistant S. aureus activity for both prophylactic and empiric therapy. The goal of the present study was to assess the bacteriology and antibiotic susceptibility of breast implant-related infections at two tertiary care hospitals in the Texas Medical Center to determine whether a baseline for empiric therapy for breast implant infections could be established.
A retrospective review of patients who developed periprosthetic infections within 1 month after breast implant placement between 2001 and 2006 was completed. One hundred six patients with 116 infected breasts were identified. Patients were included in the study only if they had documented culture data.
Thirty-one breasts in 26 patients met inclusion criteria. Sixty-seven percent of the infected breasts had S. aureus infections; of these, 68 percent were methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections and 32 percent were methicillin-susceptible S. aureus infections. We noted Gram-negative rods and sterile cultures in 6 percent and 26 percent of breasts, respectively.
Because of the high incidence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections in breast implant recipients, we believe that choosing an antibiotic with anti-methicillin-resistant S. aureus activity is justified for empiric treatment of breast implant infections, until culture and sensitivity data, if obtained, become available.

0 Followers
 · 
140 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although considered as an aseptic surgery, infection after prosthesis-based mammoplasty represents the leading cause of morbidity after reconstructive and aesthetic surgery. Antibiotic prophylaxis is supported by several studies to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) and capsular contracture (CC). However, there is no high quality evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis in this area.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Up to 2.3 million people are colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States, causing well-documented morbidity and mortality. Although the association of clinical outcomes with community and hospital carriage rates is increasingly defined, less is reported about asymptomatic colonization prevalence among physicians, and specifically plastic surgeons and the subsequent association with the incidence of patient surgical-site infection. Methods: A review of the literature using the PubMed and Cochrane databases analyzing provider screening, transmission, and prevalence was undertaken. In addition, a search was completed for current screening and decontamination guidelines and outcomes. Results: The methicillin-resistant S. aureus carriage prevalence of surgical staff is 4.5 percent. No prospective data exist regarding transmission and interventions for plastic surgeons. No studies were found specifically looking at prevalence or treatment of plastic surgeons. Current recommendations by national organizations focus on patient-oriented point-of-care testing and intervention, largely ignoring the role of the health care provider. Excellent guidelines exist regarding screening, transmission prevention, and treatment both in the workplace and in the community. No current such guidelines exist for plastic surgeons. Conclusions: No Level I or II evidence was found regarding physician screening, treatment, or transmission. Current expert opinion, however, indicates that plastic surgeons and their staff should be vigilant for methicillin-resistant S. aureus transmission, and once a sentinel cluster of skin and soft-tissue infections is identified, systematic screening and decontamination should be considered. If positive, topical decolonization therapy should be offered. In refractory cases, oral antibiotic therapy may be required, but this should not be used as a first-line strategy.
    Plastic &amp Reconstructive Surgery 11/2014; 134(5):1078-89. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000626 · 3.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with solid tumors frequently undergo surgical procedures and develop procedure-related infections. We sought to describe the current microbiologic spectrum of infections at various sites following common surgical procedures. This was a retrospective review of microbiologic data between January 2011 and February 2012. The sites studied were those associated with breast cancer surgery, thoracotomy, craniotomy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube insertion, and abdominal/pelvic surgery. Only patients with solid tumors were included. A total of 368 surgical site infections (SSIs) were identified (68 breast cancer related; 91 thoracotomy related; 45 craniotomy related; 75 PEG-tube insertion related; and 89 abdominal/pelvic surgery related). Of these, 58% were monomicrobial and 42% were polymicrobial. Overall, 85% of the 215 monomicrobial infections were caused by Gram-positive organisms and 13% by Gram-negative bacilli (GNB). Staphylococcus aureus was the predominant pathogen in monomicrobial infections (150 of 215, 70%). Sixty (40%) of these staphylococcal isolates were methicillin resistant (MRSA), and 65% had a vancomycin minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) ≥1.0 µg/ml. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the predominant GNB pathogen (19 of 27, 70%). Staphylococci were also the predominant pathogens in polymicrobial infections, while P. aeruginosa and Escherichia coli were the predominant GNB. Overall, 35% of isolates from polymicrobial infections were GNB. Cephalosporins (e.g., cefazolin) or amoxicillin/clavulanate was used most often for surgical prophylaxis, and 47% of organisms from monomicrobial infections (MRSA, P. aeruginosa) were resistant to them. A similar resistance pattern was observed in polymicrobial infections. Staphylococcus species were isolated most often from the sites studied. Polymicrobial infections (42%) and GNB monomicrobial infections (13%) were relatively frequent causes of SSIs. Many of these infections were caused by organisms that are resistant to agents commonly used for surgical prophylaxis. Additionally, 65% of staphylococcal isolates had a vancomycin MIC ≥1.0 µg/ml, suggesting the need for alternative therapeutic agents.
    11/2014; 3(2). DOI:10.1007/s40121-014-0048-4